Harry Truman was a freaking anti-communist hawk who pissed off people within his own party because he was too hard on Uncle Joe. The fact that his administration had problems with Joseph McCarthy should tell you about how damned scary McCarthy was.

Harry Truman was a freaking anti-communist hawk who pissed off people within his own party because he was too hard on Uncle Joe. The fact that his administration had problems with Joseph McCarthy should tell you about how damned scary McCarthy was.

Just saying.

This. Though Russia had its own share of hacks teaching their school children that every American was like Joseph McCarthy.

She also said we should have heeded Patton's warning and "dealt with the Soviets now, for if we don't we will be fighting them for the next forty years." According to her, we should have taken German POWs and used them as meatbags to march east into Russia immediately after Berlin's fall. Failing that, we should have used the Soviet blockade of West Germany as a cassus belli for war. As if that wasn't enough, she claims MacCarthur was right in calling for total war against China in the Korean War.

The worst part of that class is almost everyone is stupid. There is an amen chorus of six or so people that non-ironically support her in all of her bizarrely hawkish statements, as well as her obnoxious "big government is bad when the Democrats do it" mantra.

I would've supported Patton going in and Inksing up the Soviets as well. However, I also like the strategy of nuclear deterence. Whatever, I'd likely just find a way to oppose her since she's a teacher and I always oppose whoever tries to teach me anything.

I would've supported Patton going in and Inksing up the Soviets as well. However, I also like the strategy of nuclear deterence. Whatever, I'd likely just find a way to oppose her since she's a teacher and I always oppose whoever tries to teach me anything.

Presumably you died on the beaches of Normandy, but if your brother made it to the end of WW2, [inks]ing up the Soviets in 1945 is a good enough cause for him to die for, yes?

She also said we should have heeded Patton's warning and "dealt with the Soviets now, for if we don't we will be fighting them for the next forty years." According to her, we should have taken German POWs and used them as meatbags to march east into Russia immediately after Berlin's fall. Failing that, we should have used the Soviet blockade of West Germany as a cassus belli for war. As if that wasn't enough, she claims MacCarthur was right in calling for total war against China in the Korean War.

The worst part of that class is almost everyone is stupid. There is an amen chorus of six or so people that non-ironically support her in all of her bizarrely hawkish statements, as well as her obnoxious "big government is bad when the Democrats do it" mantra.

God what morons.

If American History classes believe that Harry Truman was a commie lover I shudder to think what label they would give to Claude Pepper or Henry Wallace.

Let me guess: Joseph Kennedy Sr. is a left wing liberal according to your teach?

She also said we should have heeded Patton's warning and "dealt with the Soviets now, for if we don't we will be fighting them for the next forty years." According to her, we should have taken German POWs and used them as meatbags to march east into Russia immediately after Berlin's fall. Failing that, we should have used the Soviet blockade of West Germany as a cassus belli for war. As if that wasn't enough, she claims MacCarthur was right in calling for total war against China in the Korean War.

The worst part of that class is almost everyone is stupid. There is an amen chorus of six or so people that non-ironically support her in all of her bizarrely hawkish statements, as well as her obnoxious "big government is bad when the Democrats do it" mantra.

God what morons.

If American History classes believe that Harry Truman was a commie lover I shudder to think what label they would give to Claude Pepper or Henry Wallace.

Let me guess: Joseph Kennedy Sr. is a left wing liberal according to your teach?

We haven't talked about him yet. Hopefully she will talk about him once we get to the 1960 election.

I would've supported Patton going in and Inksing up the Soviets as well. However, I also like the strategy of nuclear deterence. Whatever, I'd likely just find a way to oppose her since she's a teacher and I always oppose whoever tries to teach me anything.

Presumably you died on the beaches of Normandy, but if your brother made it to the end of WW2, [inks]ing up the Soviets in 1945 is a good enough cause for him to die for, yes?

If this is about feeling for other people, then let's talk about the millions killed under Stalinism, something that we had every moral right to oppose, whether through nuclear deterrence of physical military force. One costly war could have saved us several thousand costly missiles later. Or maybe you like to think of the money diverted to the arms race from the welfare state. Maybe with the Soviets vanquished much earlier, you get that money going to the "right" people. Hindsight is 20/20 but if I'm in 1945, we didn't just vanquish fascism in order to let communism take its place.

I would've supported Patton going in and Inksing up the Soviets as well. However, I also like the strategy of nuclear deterence. Whatever, I'd likely just find a way to oppose her since she's a teacher and I always oppose whoever tries to teach me anything.

Presumably you died on the beaches of Normandy, but if your brother made it to the end of WW2, [inks]ing up the Soviets in 1945 is a good enough cause for him to die for, yes?

If this is about feeling for other people, then let's talk about the millions killed under Stalinism, something that we had every moral right to oppose, whether through nuclear deterrence of physical military force. One costly war could have saved us several thousand costly missiles later. Or maybe you like to think of the money diverted to the arms race from the welfare state. Maybe with the Soviets vanquished much earlier, you get that money going to the "right" people. Hindsight is 20/20 but if I'm in 1945, we didn't just vanquish fascism in order to let communism take its place.

There is just a few problems with your supposition about Communism.The first is that back in 1945 people didn't know how twisted Stalin Communism really was. You have to remember that back in the Ukrainian Famine (which I would call "the Irish Famine if it was on steroids") the news being given back to the US was that Stalin's government was *gasp* successful in dealing with the famine among other things. While Ukrainians fell down left and right, BY THE THOUSANDS DAILY, our own journalists were coming back home and saying that the Soviet Government, who arguably went out of their way to make the Ukrainian Famine as horrible as possible (9 million people, dead in a year. Again, this would've ate the Irish Famine for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for a week) were in fact taking drastic steps that helped alleviate the poverty. In fact, many western liberals assumed that Soviet Communism was just a really extreme version of liberalism where the state provides everything and everybody gives each other hugs. Even conservatives of the time didn't really see Soviet Communism as a great evil force that would kill untold millions, but as a system of far left statist radicalism.With the rise of Hitler and his open dickweed ideology, people probably paid even less attention to Stalin Communism. Especially after the Allies allied with Moscow to defeat Hitler. It certainly didn't help things that Stalin had the tendency to delete people from existence. Hitler might've killed people, but Stalin made them "disappeared." Even after World War II many of Stalin's atrocities were in the dark. Sure, there was German propaganda about Soviet war crimes (that were probably true) and incidents like Soviet soldiers raping and pillaging all the way to Berlin, but it's not like the Allies had a punchbypunch update of what was happening. All the Allies knew was that it was April 1945 and they were close to victory. It wasn't like the Allies were sitting around in lawn chairs having some smokes waiting for the Russians to get to Berlin.The American people in 1945 didn't have the information we have now on Stalin. Sure, they knew he wasn't a 100% cool wholesome guy, but they didn't know he was Absolut Vodka evil until like the late 1950's. Hell, most Americans probably didn't truly understand the ramifications of the Holocaust until the 1960's or whenever Holocaust Studies really got off the ground.

If you were alive back in 1945 you wouldn't stop if you knew that Communism would replace Fascism, but a lot of westerners of the time would. Soviet Russia wasn't popular back then, hell Henry Wallace wasn't popular back then! However, Stalin Russia was perceived as merely that: unpopular. Many people didn't perceive it as being "Great Evil" until about the Korean War. The most seeming point of difference between the western Capitalist nations and Communist nations was ideology. I'm not saying America was ignorant back then, but merely that Stalin's whitewashing campaign was just that damn good.By the time that many people became aware of how evil Stalin really was, USSR probably had enough nuclear weapons to erase whatever explosive advantage we had before.

Also, there is the possibility that RUSSIA IS READY FOR AN ATTACK. GI Joe doesn't go on his unobstructed march into the Russian wilderness, instead Uncle Joe manages to turn back the incoming yankee tank brigades and manages a successful tank division counterattack into parts of West Germany, Southeastern Europe (including Greece), and maybe even a portion of Italy. This is Joseph Stalin's army, you think the populations of those places will be in peace after the Soviet Army takes over? Joe Stalin killed 10 million of his own countrymen, imagine what he would do to Greeks, Italians, Austrians, Germans.......FRENCH OR BELGIANS?!Millions did die due to Stalinism, MILLIONS MORE would die in an all out war between the Allies and the Soviets after World War II. And due to the amount of money that would be required to fund a defense army in a defeated Soviet Russia.............more money would still be spent on tank shells than social programs.

'Kay... I don't often like to admit I'm wrong, and even admitting I'm wrong seems just like the lazy, pussy way out (which is why I'm taking it). However, I've done enough research this week that I feel I can give up on this guilt free. I'll admit, in theory, I do quite like the idea of charging straight through Eastern Europe and Inksing up Mother Russia. However, you two do make very good points. Most arguments I've been in involve one of the two sides choosing to walk away, however, that's even lazier than admitting I'm wrong. So, I'm not really used to just dropping an argument with a formal "Okay guys, I was wrong". I prefer to stick it out and fight no matter how little data backs me up. So I guess that is my roundabout way of trying to explain that I understand what you're saying and realize the err of my ways. I consder you two forum friends, and so I'll just be civil about this. God, I hope this doesn't sound like arrogant condescension or soemthing...

I doubt that going to war with the Soviets would have been an extremely popular idea in 1945. The U.S. only got into WWII because it had been attacked. And after four years of very costly warfare it's unlikely that the American people would have cheered at the idea of launching a war of aggression against the Soviet Union.

Besides, the idea has something disturbingly Orwellian. A "perpetual war" where your closest allies become your fiercest enemies from one day to the next.

'Kay... I don't often like to admit I'm wrong, and even admitting I'm wrong seems just like the lazy, pussy way out (which is why I'm taking it). However, I've done enough research this week that I feel I can give up on this guilt free. I'll admit, in theory, I do quite like the idea of charging straight through Eastern Europe and Inksing up Mother Russia. However, you two do make very good points. Most arguments I've been in involve one of the two sides choosing to walk away, however, that's even lazier than admitting I'm wrong. So, I'm not really used to just dropping an argument with a formal "Okay guys, I was wrong". I prefer to stick it out and fight no matter how little data backs me up. So I guess that is my roundabout way of trying to explain that I understand what you're saying and realize the err of my ways. I consder you two forum friends, and so I'll just be civil about this. God, I hope this doesn't sound like arrogant condescension or soemthing...

Cathcon, do you realize just for one second what going at war with USSR right after WW2 would have implied ?

I'd love for you to enlighten me. (Normally, me saying this sentence means I'm being saracastic, but in this case, no)

Not at all man

I don't hold it against you. It takes a lot of nuts to admit you're wrong about something.

Look on the bright side: there are people who believe that Jews are trying to take over the world. There are people who also believe that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War. You believe the world would've been better off if there was no Soviet Union post 1945.

Well, Truman actually did play a role in the fall of China to the Reds and the much heralded General George C. Marshall played the leading role. In the Spring of 1945 Communist Chinese forces took the Manchurian cities of Changchun, Harbin and Siping and with it control of the China Eastern Railway. By the fall of 1945, however, Nationalist General Jiang had effectively reversed the Reds and taken back most of the major cities and rail lines in Manchuria. However, the Communist Central Committee ordered Red commander Lin Biao to hold Harbin, Changchun and the East Central Railway at all costs. This made little sense because of the reversals until one looks at General Marshall and his "peace plan."

Marshall arrived in China in December 1945 at the behest of President Truman. Truman apparently wanted to stave off a civil war which was silly and naive, but that does not surprise anyone who knows about the President from Pendergast. Marshall tried to save the Communists by convincing Jiang to abandon Manchuria, but he refused to do so. He actually was able to take Changchun and Siping from the Reds. In June 1946 Marshall was able to attain a cease-fire and it gave the Reds enough time to use the railway hub of Harbin to escape from the surrounding Nationalist forces in Manchuria. It was from here where the Nationalists lost the momentum and the Red victory of 1949 was achieved.

So Truman and Marshall did indeed "lose" China by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Well, Truman actually did play a role in the fall of China to the Reds and the much heralded General George C. Marshall played the leading role. In the Spring of 1945 Communist Chinese forces took the Manchurian cities of Changchun, Harbin and Siping and with it control of the China Eastern Railway. By the fall of 1945, however, Nationalist General Jiang had effectively reversed the Reds and taken back most of the major cities and rail lines in Manchuria. However, the Communist Central Committee ordered Red commander Lin Biao to hold Harbin, Changchun and the East Central Railway at all costs. This made little sense because of the reversals until one looks at General Marshall and his "peace plan."

Marshall arrived in China in December 1945 at the behest of President Truman. Truman apparently wanted to stave off a civil war which was silly and naive, but that does not surprise anyone who knows about the President from Pendergast. Marshall tried to save the Communists by convincing Jiang to abandon Manchuria, but he refused to do so. He actually was able to take Changchun and Siping from the Reds. In June 1946 Marshall was able to attain a cease-fire and it gave the Reds enough time to use the railway hub of Harbin to escape from the surrounding Nationalist forces in Manchuria. It was from here where the Nationalists lost the momentum and the Red victory of 1949 was achieved.

So Truman and Marshall did indeed "lose" China by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Interesting. I highly doubt my teacher is aware of this, but interesting nonetheless.

Cathcon, do you realize just for one second what going at war with USSR right after WW2 would have implied ?

I'd love for you to enlighten me. (Normally, me saying this sentence means I'm being saracastic, but in this case, no)

So, let me see. The US have been at war for 4 years, with all the sufferings it implies. They just won the war, in great part with the help of USSR (whether you like Stalin or not, USSR's impact on WW2 was decisive). So, of course, the best thing to do is to engage a war with :1) a country which was your ally until yesterday (therefore probably) losing most of the sympathy it had gained in Europe2) a country with a 20,000,000 km2 area (not counting occupied territories), one of the world's strongest armies, and led by a crazy dictator ready to do anything to win3) a country which would build nuclear bombs just 4 years later

The consequences are quite easy to foresee. I'm sorry, but this is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

Logged

RIP Greece. RIP European Federalism.

"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favor."

There is just a few problems with your supposition about Communism.<snip>

Best post I've read in a long time. I, like Cathcon, felt that kicking the Soviets ass ASAP would have been the least bad choice (with hindsight, at the time I probably wouldn't have thought that way). But even with hindsight considered, I now change my tune. It still makes me feel like sh**t that we let the Soviets get away with the nonsense they put the people under their thumb through, but that post made me realize that it probably wouldn't have been the least bad choice. The Cold War sucked, was expensive in lives and dollars but attacking the Soviets in 1945 would have most likely cost more men and coin.

Consider some of my ignorance fought! Good luck fighting the rest, I'm going to redouble me defenses now and go read some blogs at Foxnews.com.

Logged

I believe the simple truth is that they became somewhat alarmed when they realized that I really meant to write what I believed. There is a peculiar parallel between some of our great Northern "liberals" and some of our outstanding Southern liberals.

Some of the people in both classes share the deep-seated convictions that only their convictions can possibly be the right ones. They both inevitably say the same thing: "We know the Negro and what is best for him."

There is just a few problems with your supposition about Communism.<snip>

Best post I've read in a long time. I, like Cathcon, felt that kicking the Soviets ass ASAP would have been the least bad choice (with hindsight, at the time I probably wouldn't have thought that way). But even with hindsight considered, I now change my tune. It still makes me feel like sh**t that we let the Soviets get away with the nonsense they put the people under their thumb through, but that post made me realize that it probably wouldn't have been the least bad choice. The Cold War sucked, was expensive in lives and dollars but attacking the Soviets in 1945 would have most likely cost more men and coin.

Consider some of my ignorance fought! Good luck fighting the rest, I'm going to redouble me defenses now and go read some blogs at Foxnews.com.

Well I'm glad to have enlightened you dead0man

It is often hard for those who are more blinded by idealism than by pragmatism that sometimes biting off more than you can chew isn't the best course of action and that sometimes "damned or be damned" doesn't leave much room. America wasn't God in 1945, and it's definitely not God now.